An examination of the two patents the U.S. International Trade Commission found handset maker HTC infringed upon in an initial ruling on Friday has revealed that the patent claims in question may apply to "every Android device out there."

Apple won a skirmish on Friday in its ongoing dispute against HTC when a judge for the ITC ruled that the Taiwanese company had infringed upon two patents.

"HTC will vigorously defend these two remaining patents through an appeal before the ITC commissioners who make the final decision," Grace Lei, general counsel for HTC, was reported as saying. "This is only one step of many in these legal proceedings."

The judge's findings are subject to review, with a target date for the final commission decision set for December 6, 2011, according to patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.

The commission has the power to ban imports of products deemed to be in violation of patents, a move that would devastate Google's Android mobile operating system platform if multiple handset manufacturers were blocked.

The patents HTC was found to have violated are 5,946,647, "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data" and 6,343,263, "Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data."

An in-depth analysis by Mueller of the specific patent claims HTC has been found guilty of violating suggests that the infringing technologies are part of the Android architecture, rather than unique enhancements made by HTC. As such, competing Android vendors such as Motorola and Samsung may also be at risk.

Apple's '643 patent appears to relate directly to the iPhone's practice of detecting contact information, such as phone numbers and email addresses, and forming a link that, when clicked, performs contextualized actions. Documents submitted by Apple accuse HTC of violating this patent through Android's "Linkify" functionality.

According to Android's own developer reference site, which is cited in the documents, Linkify takes "a piece of text and a regular expression and turns all of the regex matches in the text into clickable links."

Given that, according to Mueller, the feature is "most probably built into each and every Android device out there," a final ITC ruling upholding Friday's ruling would pose a serious threat to all U.S. Android vendors.

In spite of HTC's claims that it has "alternate solutions" for the issues, Mueller believes the signal-processing patent will be "extremely hard" to work around. "In Android's case, it's possible that working around this patent requires a fundamental change to Android's architecture, and possibly even to the architecture of the underlying Linux kernel," he wrote.

In fact, prominent Android smartphone and tablet maker Motorola Wireless seems to have recognized the danger of these patents, as the company preemptively sought to have them invalidated last October after filing suit against the iPhone maker. Apple subsequently added the patents to a countersuit against Motorola.

AppleInsider uncovered job listings on Friday that indicate Apple is shopping for lawyers for litigation team in preparation for the coming intellectual property showdown between Apple and its rivals, namely HTC, Motorola and Samsung.

For their part, HTC and Samsung have accused Apple of resorting to litigation instead of competing fairly in the market.

According to Android's own developer reference site, which is cited in the documents, Linkify takes "a piece of text and a regular expression and turns all of the regex matches in the text into clickable links."

That is patentable? But this is trivial and obvious code. In most modern high level programming languages it is a single line of code. This is as bad as the Amazon one click patent. I'm actually surprised there isn't plenty of examples of prior art.

All this makes me think is the entire patent system is a joke and should be scrapped.

In spite of HTC's claims that it has "alternate solutions" for the issues, Mueller believes the signal-processing patent will be "extremely hard" to work around. "In Android's case, it's possible that working around this patent requires a fundamental change to Android's architecture, and possibly even to the architecture of the underlying Linux kernel," he wrote.

If it might require a change to the architecture of the underlying Linux kernel does this mean every device using Linux from major servers to embedded systems could potentially be in violation of this patent?

It's sort of obvious that Apple had stuff taken, but I wonder if it would be such as big deal if it was another company? The question that remains is will Apple allow a reasonable settlement or is the Federal government going to have to step in because they force their competitors out of business. Hopefully, not the latter. If a company steals another's patent, they should have to pay, but in the same way, a company who holds all the patents for the ideal device, shouldn't be able to keep patents away their competition and hence have no competition. Apple is already huge and we really don't want them being the only major mobile device maker and operating system.

It's sort of obvious that Apple had stuff taken, but I wonder if it would be such as big deal if it was another company? The question that remains is will Apple allow a reasonable settlement or is the Federal government going to have to step in because they force their competitors out of business. Hopefully, not the latter. If a company steals another's patent, they should have to pay, but in the same way, a company who holds all the patents for the ideal device, shouldn't be able to keep patents away their competition and hence have no competition. Apple is already huge and we really don't want them being the only major mobile device maker and operating system.

I don't think you quite understand the point of having a patent in the first place.

That is patentable? But this is trivial and obvious code. In most modern high level programming languages it is a single line of code. This is as bad as the Amazon one click patent. I'm actually surprised there isn't plenty of examples of prior art.

All this makes me think is the entire patent system is a joke and should be scrapped.

I think among the early 'prior art' you would find 'apple data detectors' built into system 8 (maybe even earlier - system 7.6 pro?) and probably the basis of this patent. Just because it's obvious now doesn't mean it wasn't an original concept at one point.

The patent system is messed up. But the case of Apple shows that it's not just patent trolls using patents to extract money that's the problem, it's also the ins and outs of using patents to protect genuine innovation. Android is a clear a case of something IP law should be trying to stop. A company, Google, bought another company, Android, and got them to copy Apple's new phone for the sole purpose of giving it away for free so they could stop Apple from becoming the dominant player in the mobile market and thereby ensure there wasn't gatekeeper between them and the mobile ad market. That's exactly the kind of behaviour IP law should be stopping. Yet Apple has to defend themselves using these bizarre patents that really aren't related to the real issue. Legal issues are always like that - you have to get the right outcome but arguing over a lot of tangential issues - but with IP law it's especially messy.

There are thousands of cross lic#,s that every one for decades has paid each other. Ever wonder how qualcomm got so rich ??

I agree with Qualcomm poit + this point: Cross Licensing instead of Law Suits!!!

My assumption is that Apple suggested Licensing or and Cross Licensing in each case, and the competitors thought that they might win in court, and not have to pay anything... Obviously, none of us know what really, actually happens! We just read the spin... Android seemed like a Variation on Themes by Apple! That whole Biz Model of them "giving away" Android seems like a PR Stunt to sell ads...

I would have preferred Google working with Apple, and they would have ruled the world. But, maybe they did this to avoid Anti Trust issues... Oops, I am getting off topic!

Ideally, Android should have offered a very Unique Thing of it's own, not a Me Too Imitation!!! Obviously, I am biased towards Apple, because I am big Apple fan... Also, Apple Stores, as part of Apple's Holistic Approach, tied with Hardware etc, that makes more sense too me than Catch Me If You Can "Tech Support" for Android, based on Hear Say BS I've seen at Cell Carriers' Stores "Tech Support", which are a joke, compared to Apple Stores!!! To me, it all boils down to Support!!!! I don't want to ever again go back to the Free For All Days of Palm blaming Apple, and vs., with Cell Carriers in the middle, pointing fingers, as the phone crashes, and data loss, playing tech support detective to restore data!!!! Apple's Whole Echo System, with Apple Stores, Apple Care, dwarfs all others!!! No wonder MSFT is trying to build its own stores - Me Too Imitation!!!

I think among the early 'prior art' you would find 'apple data detectors' built into system 8 (maybe even earlier - system 7.6 pro?) and probably the basis of this patent. Just because it's obvious now doesn't mean it wasn't an original concept at one point.

Back in 1977 a programming language called AWK was written specifically to make it easy to programs that detected regular expressions in text and then executed bits of code appropriately.

My assumption is that Apple suggested Licensing or and Cross Licensing in each case, and the competitors thought that they might win in court, and not have to pay anything...

That's a really big assumption, and there's no evidence for it. Apple is stating in the lawsuit that they require an injunction because allowing HTC to continue to import is doing damage to Apple's market share that cannot be financially remedied. If Apple was looking for license fees that wouldn't make sense.

We don't know what Apple's aim is here, and we won't find out until they win, if they win.

I don't think you quite understand the point of having a patent in the first place.

Actually he's closer to being right than you think. The supreme court recently changed the game here and made it far harder to get an injunction from the court system, because courts were required to consider public interest as well as the patent holders rights. Absent an injunction the best a patent holder can do is extract court awarded damages and license fees going forwards.

The ITC however isn't bound by that ruling, so injunctions are still plausible.

That's a really big assumption, and there's no evidence for it. Apple is stating in the lawsuit that they require an injunction because allowing HTC to continue to import is doing damage to Apple's market share that cannot be financially remedied. If Apple was looking for license fees that wouldn't make sense.

We don't know what Apple's aim is here, and we won't find out until they win, if they win.

Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.

It's sort of obvious that Apple had stuff taken, but I wonder if it would be such as big deal if it was another company? The question that remains is will Apple allow a reasonable settlement or is the Federal government going to have to step in because they force their competitors out of business. Hopefully, not the latter. If a company steals another's patent, they should have to pay, but in the same way, a company who holds all the patents for the ideal device, shouldn't be able to keep patents away their competition and hence have no competition. Apple is already huge and we really don't want them being the only major mobile device maker and operating system.

Why would this put HTC 'Out of business'?? For the first patent we're talking about 'data detectors' creating links contextually on information in a text stream. If Apple would be successful, and decide NOT to license, which is their right, HTC would just have to remove this feature - hardly out of business. It would put them at a competitive disadvantage but that's what R&D is all about.

And for those that say 'This is obvious'. First, its the use of this in the UI which, I believe in 1996 (the priority date of the patent) was NOT obvious. It is now because its 15 years old!!!! but still under patent.

This is what IP is all about and it is NOT anti-competitive. Google/HTC knew well about this patent and chose NOT to work around it and NOT to license it. Their bad.

Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.

Although his statement is erroneous, calling him a troll is silly. Some of you don't allow any opinion that is not pro-Apple as hostile. Invest some of that passion in a real life.

Yes, calling me a troll is silly. I guess, I should elaborate a bit on my statement.

The patent system needs a serious reworking. being able to patent every little thing is beyond ludicrous. Being able to will a company out of existence just because it does something so simple and so common place just because you put in a patent for it is beyond silly.

Like what Lodsys is doing with their latest "linking to full version games" patent.

Patents should exist to protect game changing innovations, not to protect something because it blinks 3 times or because it wiggles 4 times a second.

Now, yes, HTC may have violated something serious. But the majority of these patents are nothing more that trolling patents.

I think among the early 'prior art' you would find 'apple data detectors' built into system 8 (maybe even earlier - system 7.6 pro?) and probably the basis of this patent. Just because it's obvious now doesn't mean it wasn't an original concept at one point.

Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.

Some of you guys like to make statements that are complete fiction! Here's a little graph of who's suing whom in the telecom trade. It doesn't fit your 'golden rule' of fiction very well. Apple just like every other telecom company is protecting their patents.

Yes, calling me a troll is silly. I guess, I should elaborate a bit on my statement.

The patent system needs a serious reworking. being able to patent every little thing is beyond ludicrous. Being able to will a company out of existence just because it does something so simple and so common place just because you put in a patent for it is beyond silly.

Like what Lodsys is doing with their latest "linking to full version games" patent.

Patents should exist to protect game changing innovations, not to protect something because it blinks 3 times or because it wiggles 4 times a second.

Now, yes, HTC may have violated something serious. But the majority of these patents are nothing more that trolling patents.

It's not just about of these trivial 'blinks 3 times' patents. It's about all of them together protecting a product. The iPhone is covered by 200+ patents not including patents that Apple licenses. A product is a collection of ideas.

I'm not sure what people want to happen. With the current patent system, companies are coping/stealing ideas everyday. Anything less really screws the innovating company.

As much as I dislike Android and all the other iPhone knockoffs. It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.

I would love to see all the android devices fall off the face of the earth, but not like this.

The difference between Apple and patent trolls is the patent trolls just sit on their patent portfolios, waiting for other companies to come along and build successful products so they can sue them for some of the profits. Apple is selling many products, in case you hadn't noticed.

The patent system is messed up. But the case of Apple shows that it's not just patent trolls using patents to extract money that's the problem, it's also the ins and outs of using patents to protect genuine innovation. Android is a clear a case of something IP law should be trying to stop. A company, Google, bought another company, Android, and got them to copy Apple's new phone for the sole purpose of giving it away for free so they could stop Apple from becoming the dominant player in the mobile market and thereby ensure there wasn't gatekeeper between them and the mobile ad market. That's exactly the kind of behaviour IP law should be stopping. Yet Apple has to defend themselves using these bizarre patents that really aren't related to the real issue. Legal issues are always like that - you have to get the right outcome but arguing over a lot of tangential issues - but with IP law it's especially messy.

It's sort of obvious that Apple had stuff taken, but I wonder if it would be such as big deal if it was another company? The question that remains is will Apple allow a reasonable settlement or is the Federal government going to have to step in because they force their competitors out of business. Hopefully, not the latter. If a company steals another's patent, they should have to pay, but in the same way, a company who holds all the patents for the ideal device, shouldn't be able to keep patents away their competition and hence have no competition. Apple is already huge and we really don't want them being the only major mobile device maker and operating system.

I'm on the same boat. Let them pay. Android is good for anyone who doesn't want or can't afford iPhone. That's OK but they have to pay. No free ride.

I am more interested in how the courts and ITC view the 5 new patents Apple included in the suit, as I am guessing they include the recently-granted Multi-touch patents.

Since it would be risky for Apple to press it, I think it would be in Apple's best interest to use these patents to wipe out the S3 claims, use the new patents to sign a lucrative but reasonable licensing deal, and use the precedent to hammer Samsung, arguably the worst offender.

Since the ITC will not ban large companies like HTC and Samsung, the best scenario for Apple that I see is that it collects between $5-15 on each handset, Samsung stops copying iOS's trade dress with TouchWiz, and, between the Apple, Microsoft, and possibly Nokia licensing fees, OEMs are discourages from pumping the market full of Android phones. Android's biggest competitive advantage is ridiculous OEM support, since it is a free OS. If it's not free, OEMs may turn to WP7, etc.

I have heard rumblings that OEMs are signing MS's license agreements, as they feel this will protect them from Apple. Any more on that?

It's not just about of these trivial 'blinks 3 times' patents. It's about all of them together protecting a product. The iPhone is covered by 200+ patents not including patents that Apple licenses. A product is a collection of ideas.

I'm not sure what people want to happen. With the current patent system, companies are coping/stealing ideas everyday. Anything less really screws the innovating company.

Well to be fair, there would be no 'stealing' if software patents were not allowed. IP law has made a very uneasy transition into the digital domain. As long as the generic criteria are used to determine patent validity, they will continue to be issued.

I see the software patent system changing in a few years. It is a damn joke right now. We are seeing people suing left and right for frivolous reasons. Some Indian company is now suing apple, microsoft and dozens of other companies. Hell I want to patent my software now: a visual user interface that allows interaction with user and hardware.

They may be difficult to work around, but I suspect Google has the staff and budget to do so anyway.

I wish I understood the details of the patents so I could even begin to judge whether Google copied an Apple invention, or whether the infringement is just Google coming up with the same technologies Apple uses, by sheer bad luck \ The one-line sound-bite patent descriptions are pretty useless by themselves.

As another person said, a patent troll is a company or party that owns a patent who has no intent, means, or desire to actually develop anything. The only purpose for owning the patent is to sit on it until somebody else arguably comes up with a similar idea so that company can be sued. Instead of being a hideous monster that hides under a bridge waiting for unsuspecting people to walk over it, a patent troll instead quietly sits with the alleged patent while another company develops a product and creates a successful market for the product not knowing somebody out there will claim a patent to the product. Then the patent troll springs out of nowhere and sues.

Apple can't be compared to a patent troll. It actually spends hundreds of millions of dollars in research in order to bring to market great products. It then wants to profit from the fruit of that labor. Jobs publicly told the whole world when Apple first brought the iPhone to market, we patented the heck out of this thing. Unlike a troll, Apple wasn't hiding its patents, but advertising them.

It is interesting to note, when the iPhone came out companies like RIM didn't think it was possible a phone could do everything Apple claimed it could do. After seeing Apple's iOS, Google dropped the interface it was planning to use for phones. The original Android Os was nothing like what it turned into after Apple brought the iPhone to market. These companies had a big advantage over Apple because copying another's ideas costs a lot less money then doing the research yourself.

I honestly am baffled by anybody being upset for Apple trying to defend what is blatant copying. To Microsoft's credit, it came up with an original OS design for Windows 7 used on its phones. So it is possible to do that. It just is easier to blatantly copy, which is the route Google is fond of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadGoat

As much as I dislike Android and all the other iPhone knockoffs. It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.

I would love to see all the android devices fall off the face of the earth, but not like this.

The ITC doesn't issue injunctions. It issues exclusion or cease and desist orders. An exclusion order prevents product from entering the US. A cease and desist order prevents product being stockpiled in the US from being sold.

In my view, the main benefit of the ITC though is speed. Courts take years to come to decisions in patent litigation cases. The ITC generally takes less then a year.

Courts also still can issue injunctions they just have to engage in a balancing test to figure out if injunctive relief is appropriate. Before injunctive relief was automatic.

Actually he's closer to being right than you think. The supreme court recently changed the game here and made it far harder to get an injunction from the court system, because courts were required to consider public interest as well as the patent holders rights. Absent an injunction the best a patent holder can do is extract court awarded damages and license fees going forwards.

The ITC however isn't bound by that ruling, so injunctions are still plausible.

They may be difficult to work around, but I suspect Google has the staff and budget to do so anyway.

I wish I understood the details of the patents so I could even begin to judge whether Google copied an Apple invention, or whether the infringement is just Google coming up with the same technologies Apple uses, by sheer bad luck \ The one-line sound-bite patent descriptions are pretty useless by themselves.

It's the bad luck scenario, much like the process where Microsoft was able to develop Windows using exactly the same Xerox PARC technologies and ideas that Apple 'stole'.